Loading...
5A - Public Hearing and discussion of the Transit Village Area PlanCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 15, 2007 AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and Discussion of the Transit Village Area Plan including: • EPS analysis of financial feasibility of proposed land uses • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) & Parking. (continued from 2/22) Phasing & Financing Approaches Draft Plan chapters REQUESTING DEPARTMENTS: Plannin~ & Development Services: Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Susan Richstone, Acting I.ong Range Planning Manager I.ouise Grauer, Project Manager Transportation: Tracy WinFree, Transportation Director Mike Sweeney, Transportation Operations and Planning Coordinator Randall Rutsch, Senior Transportation Planner PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the following Transit Village Area Plan items: 1. EPS Residual Land Value Analysis (AttachmentA). Dan Guimond will be at the meeting to answer any questions. 2. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Parking: (Continued from the March 22 meeting) (Attachment B.) Stuart Anderson will be at the meeting to answer any questions. 3. Phasing and financing to be included in the implementation chapter. 4. Preliminary Design Concepts for the Depot Plaza/Rail Platform area (Attachment C.) 5. Draft Plan: Illustrative Plan (Attachment D) Chapter 2 Land Use (Attachment E1 The following questions are intended to help guide your discussion: 1. Does the board have any comments or questions on the EPS Residual Land Value Analysis? 2. Does the Board agree with the proposed TDM and parking approaches for the transit village area? A¢enda Item SA Pate # 1 3. Does the Board have any questions or comments on the public improvements phasing and costs? 4. Does the Board have any questions or comments on the follow-up transit diagram? 5. Does the Board have any questions or comments on the draft chapters of the Plan that you have received to date? ANALYSIS 1. EPS Analvsis of the Financial Feasibilitv of the land uses (Attachment A) The purpose of Ihe EPS Residual L.and Analysis sent to you last week, a revised version of which is in Attachment A, was threefold: To deternune the planning level feasibility of the proposed land uses for TVAP. To deternvne whether the proposed land uses provide the opportunity to leverage increased value for azea-wide key public improvements. To detemune whether the proposed land uses provide the oppoztunity to leverage increased value for additional community bene£t such as affordable housing. The EPS memo summarizes their analysis and describes their methodology and assumptions. The conclusions from their analysis include: 1. In the shorf term, residential development in general provides the greatest value: either in mixed use zones with a high percentage of residential use or as pure residential. 2. In comparison, industrial uses are less feasible under today's lease rates. EPS assumes that in the future, as transit services and enhanced infrastructure are developed, the azea will become more desirable and industrial and office lease rates will increase. This is consistent with the proposed approach that phase 2 would not be rezoned until later years. Phase 2 property owners who want to move forwazd with the land uses in the plan before Phase 2 is anticipated, however, could potentially move forward eazlier if adequate public facilities aze available concurrent with development. Properties east of the tracks could redevelop under cucrent zoning in the short term. 3. The analysis assumes a 30 percent pazking reduction and podium parking. In the early years there may be a need for higher parking ratios and the Mixed Use 2(MU2) land use could require some underground or structured parking. These factors could increase the development costs above [hose included in the analysis. 4. In general the analysis does not support placing additional costs of public improvements on development in the near term above what developers would normally be required to pay as part of development Mixed Use 2(with an assumed 2.0 floor area ratio-FAR) may provide the opportunity to support community benefit or some additional affordable housing, above the 20 percent requirement, although not as much as the tested 10 percent. However, this will require more analysis on parking costs and assumptions as noted above. After the A¢enda Item SA Paee # 2 initial years of redevelopment, increased values may be able to support increased developer participation in providing or financing the enhanced community benefits. The EPS conclusions indica[e that the land uses proposed for Phase 1 are financially feasible. In comparison, the industrial mixed use land uses are less feasible under today's lease rates. 2. TDM and Parkin¢ Components The following information is included in response to questions that Planning Boud raised at the Februazy 22 meeting. In addition, we anticipate that Stuart Anderson, from UrbanTrans will be at the Planning Boazd meeting. Exploration of PazkinQ Options In i[s previous discussion, Planning Board expressed concerns that the incremental approach to pazking management described in the February 22, 2007 Planning Boazd memo on TVAP may not provide the service and predictability needed to support the changing character of the area. In response, staff asked our TDM and parking consultants to explore other options that may provide greater predictability and outcomes. In response, the Operational and Organization Strategies paper prepazed by the consultants, including putting a district in place upfront, is included as Attachment B. However, the consultants emphasized that from their experience, any approach to parking management in the area needs to provide the flexibility needed to accommodate the changing character of the area as it redevelops. Staff and Stuart Anderson of UrbanTrans Consul[ants will present this material and additional case study examples at the Planning Boazd meeting. Regional Transit and Area Character Planning Board raised the issue of character of the azea relative to the regional transit facilities and the potential parking that may be required. While the city has discussed this issue numerous times with RTD, decisions on these issues will be made through the on going planning studies of the NW Rail Environmental Assessment and the site and master planning process for the city and RTD owned site. However, as part of the TVAP the city can cleazly state its intentions for the character of the area and the type of pazking that would support that character. While it is likely that the numbers will be different when new information is released by RTD, the following analysis is based on the numbers from the US 36 EIS that are available to the city. Xegional Travel Affecting Boulder Regional travel modeling has occurred throughout the US 36 EIS process and will not be finalized for the draft EIS until shortly before its release. However, in early 2006 the US 36 EIS team indicated to Transportation staff that current modeling shows about 1,700 total trips a day at the BTV station, representing about 850 travelers per day for both the rail and BRT service. While the US 36 modeling dces not provide the direction of travel, since the early 1990's Boulder has been a net importer of jobs. Transportation s[aff analysis of current travel in [he travel sheds served by BTV shows that 60 percent of the vehicles on US 36 aze in-bound in the a.m., as are 70 percent of the vehicles on South Boulder Road and 75 percent of the vehicles on the Diagonal Highway. Transit usage associated wi[h the BTV on bo[h commuter rail and BRT will have a strong correlation to existing Vavel patterns in the U.S. 36 and Diagonal Highway corridors and is expected to maintain this in-bound bias without large changes in future land use A¢enda Item 5A Paae # 3 assumptions. Based on these travel patterns, BTV transit facilities and the supporting transportation infrastructure for pedestrian, bicycle, automobile and local bus service need to be designed to suppoR a majority of the peak hour patrons being Boulder bound in the morning. A 60 percent in-bound travel share suggests that about 340 Boulder residents will be accessing regional transit connections daily at the BTV, with a significant share of these trips likely [o occur via walk, bike or local transit given the proper connections for these modes. The regional modeling also show that that BTV station continues to perForm well relative to the rest of the US 36 corridor in terms of ridership. The modeling also shows the strength of accessing [he BRT service at super stops along 28~h Street. These stops are expected to have at least twice the daily ridersfiip accessing the BRT as the ridership at BTV. This pattern mirrors the way current riders access the regiona] transit service on Broadway, where the downtown transit station serves only 20 percent of regional transit riders on Broadway and more than 40 percent of transit patrons access the service from stops along the Broadway corridor. Current Transit Facility Parking Assumptions Pazking for the regional transit facilities should support the chazacter of the area and reflect the expected travel patterns and modal shares for Boulder residents. The following preliminary parking assumptions far future RTD transit were developed in conjunction with RTD as par[ of the May 2006 TVAP charrette, and are subject to revisions based on the outcome of the US 36 EIS. RTD pazking facilities will be phased in over time as transit service is implemented. The first phase transit parking will be developed on the city/RTD property at 30`~' and Pearl and can be developed in a couple of ways. One option is that surface parking would be constructed in 2008 at 30~h and Peazl until the commuter rail is implemented in 2014 and the area has an opportunity to mature. A second option would be a pazking structure with one floor of parking constructed above the regional bus station in 2008 with options for future expansion by adding floors to the parking structure. There are pros and cons to each of these Phase I scenatios that will be an important component of site planning for the Boulder Transit Village project in 2007. Preliminary projections regarding parking supply were derived utilizing RTD preliminary transit ridership estimates and regiona] mode use assumptions and are shown below: Year # Amount 2Q08 5~ - 100 spaces 2014 100 - 200 Additional spaces 2025 200 - 500 Additional spaces • Patking for phases two and three (2014 and 2025) will be provided, as needed, either at the RTD site at 30`h and Pearl or on other sites acquired by RTD in the future or as "shared" parking provided and acquired by another agency or property owner. As part of the FasTracks analysis, RTD is evaluating additional potential parking sites south of Valmont and west of the RR tracks near the rail. • RTD is amenable to exploring shared parking, privately owned parking, and public- priva[e partnerships for addressing future transit parking needs. Aeenda Item 5A Pa¢e # 4 • Transit parking is assumed to be "managed" and be paid pazking. While RTD cannot currently charge for parking in their facilities, this may change in the future or the parking will need to be managed by another agency. Changing the state legislation that prohibits RTD from charging for pazking at its park and ride facilities is at the top of RTD's legislative agenda. 3. Phasina and Financin¢ to be included in the Implementation Chapter of the Area Plan The Implemen[ation Chapter of the Plan is intended to ensure that the preferred option is realistic and that there is a work plan to ensure that mechanisms will be in place for provision of the key public improvements and programs that will be needed to serve this azea. The work to date includes the following; The EPS analysis provides data that show the proposed land uses for Phase 1 are financially feasible. 2. The costs and the phasing of the key public improvements, with the improvements being constructed concurrent with development. 3. A proposed policy framewark for deternuning which public improvements should be public costs, which should be private costs, and which should be shazed. 4. The interdepartmental siaff has identified several options for the city funding their share of the key public improvements Phase 1 (2007- 2020) Based on the EPS market absorption analysis and the amount of development projected in the first 10 to 15 years, staff has identified a proposed Phase 1 azea between 30~6 Street and the rail lines. The key public improvements support Phase 1, set the urban design character, and meet the goals of the area are listed below. Focusing the infrastructure west of the tracks fosters a more efficient and cost effective development pattern. Phase 2 property owners who wish to move forwazd before Phase 2 is anticipated would need to ensure adequate public facilities aze in place concurrent with redevelopment. EPS has identified probable market absorption projections for these time periods and will continue to revise their projections based on their feasibility analysis. The tables below show how these key public improvements would be phased, the events that would trigger each improvement, the estimated costs, possible reimbursements, and the amount of unfunded costs. City Council suggested that they would be willing to explore and consider the city providing up front funds for key public improvements to set the tone for redevelopment of the area and [o fund the portion of the key public improvements that benefit the community. Staff identified the following key public improvements, originally in the December 19 memorandum to Council: Junction Place from Valmont south to the Boulder slough (N. Boulder and Farmers ditches). Traffic signals at Pearl & Junction Place and 30`h & Bluff Streets Pocket park Depot Plaza Aaenda Item SA Pa¢e # 5 Multi-use paths between the regional bus and the commuter rail platform Area-wide green storm water improvements The key public improvements do not include al] the improvements needed for Phase 1 develop- ment. The chart of all Phase 1 and Phase 2 public improvemen[ costs and allocations will be revised once Council provides policy direction on funding the key public improvements and on the allocation of costs between the public and private sector. Public - Private Benefit At the February 13 City Council Study Session, City Council requested that, in order to equitably divide responsibilities and costs, staff return with a policy regarding the public improvements costs that should be funded by the city and the costs that should be borne by the property owners. Below please find a draft policy framework for deternuning cost allocation between the public and private sectors for the key public improvements in the Transit Village Area Plan: Private cost - Improvements needed to meet city service standards and/or that serve and benefi[ a specific property or identified set of properties. Public cost - Improvements that benefit the community as a whole and whose direct beneficiaries may be difficulf to identify. Shared Cost - Improvements that benefit the general public and specific properties. Improvement Description of ~prho benefits Public, private or shared cost? Community serving public space that benefits community as Depot Plaza a whole including area residents, transit users, and Public em lo ees Central spi~e that will serve as more than a local road, Junction Place benefiting both adjacent properties and community as a Shared whole Bridge over Important connection on Junction Place that benefits Goose Creek community as a whole as wetl as immediately adjacent Shared properties Neighborhood Benefits area residents - needed to meet city service Pocket Park standards for neighborhood parks Private Area-wide storm water Benefits identified set of properties in area Private im rovements Most benefit city as a whole, providing regional connections Muiti-use paths to rail platlorm and Goose Creek Greenway; portions benefit Shared s ecific ro erties Traffic si nals Part of arterial network that benefits communi as a whole Public Costs and Phasing of Kev Public Improvements The tables below provide detail on three periods of time within Phase 1: • 2007 to 2010; • 2011 to 2015; • 2016 to 2020. Agenda Item SA Paee # 6 The phasing shown in the tables is staff's projection at this time based on current information and market absorption. This will need to be revisited over time and as part of the city's capital improvement program process. Additionally, the cost estimates are based on the city funding the key public improvements as identified in the February 13 City Council Study Session materials. The exact cost allocation between the city and area property owners has not yet been determined. Various options for funding and allocating the costs are identified later in the memo. 2007 - 2010 Phasin~ of Key Public Improvements (In millions) Public lmprovement Triager Estimated Cost Potential Reimbursement Unfunded '1'ransportation Im rovements Junction Pl: Pearl to Goose Crk RTD regional bus facility 1.0 .5 adjacent property owners .5 Junction Pl: Goose Creek to Bluff Steelyards- add'l develo ment .8 .2 adjacent ro ert owners .6 Traffic signal at Junction Pl & Pearl RTD regional bus facility .2 .2 adjacent property owners/ TIP 0 Bridge over Goose Creek Adjacent develo ment 1.8 .2 adjacent ro erty owners 1.5 Utilit Costs *Stormwater im rovements (50%) Development .7 .7 property owners Subtotal 4.4 4.5 2.6 Additional potential Reimbursements Construction use tax .2 Total Unfunded 2,4 A~enda ltem SA Page # 7 2011 -2015 Phasin~: of Key Yublic Improvements (In millions) I'ublic Improvement '1'rigger ~stimated C~st Potential Reimbursement Unfunded 'I'ransportation Im rovements: Junction Pl: South of Peai-1 Development of adjacent property .9 .4 adjacent pro erty owner .5 Multi-use paths from bus facility Regional bus facility .5 .1 :property owners .4 Utilit Costs *Stormwater Improvements(50%) Development .7 .7 property owners Parks Pocket park- devclo ment Residential develo ment close by .5 See below (2016- 2020) Depot plaza- land ac uisition Ahead of the commuter rail .8 1.0 .3 Subtotal 3.3 1.8 1.5 Potential rcimbursements Constructicm tlse Tax .5 'I~i~t.il l ~nfun~ie~i ; I 1.0 2016 - 2020 Phasin~ of Key Public Imnrovernents (In millions) Public Improvement Trigger Estimated Cost Potential Keimbursement Unfunded 7'ransEx-rtation Im rovements: Junction PI: Bluff to Valmont Commuter rail .9 .4 adjacent property owners .5 Traffic signal: Bluff & 30t' St Commuter rail .2 0 .2 Multi-use paths: rail to Valmont Commuter rail .5 .25 FasTracks/ ro ert owners .2~ Parks: De ot laza - development Commuter rail .75 .7.5 DET 0 Pocket park: land ac uisition .9 DET in Phase 2 .9 Subtotal 3.3 1.4 1.9 Additional poteniial reimbursements Construction use tax .7 Total Unfunded 1.2 * It is anticipated that regional stormwater improvements would be funded through the wastewater utility and repaid by property owners through assessments or fees. A~enda Item SA Pa~e # K The estimated total unfunded costs for Phase 1 include: 2007 - 2010 2.4 million 2011 - 2015 1.0 million 2016 - 2020 1.2 million Total 4.6 million Potential Fundin~pproaches City Council requested that staff recommend potential sources for funding the key public improvements that the city would fund. There are two components of funding the improvements: one is identifying a source for the upfront funds to construct the improvement and the second component is identifying the revenue sueam to reimburse the improvement. The key public improvements include the following types of improvements: Transportation - Transportation impmvements comprise the lazgest public improvement costs and do not have an identified source of funds to construct or pay back the improvements. Regional stormwater improvements - Stormwater improvements are the responsibility of the property owner. Regional improvements would be financed through the wastewater utility with property owners responsible forlhe costs. This could be through an assessment district or fees. Parks - The development excise tax (DET) provides a revenue source for Depot Plaza and the pocket park. The phasing plan shows that these improvements would be phased to coincide with availability of funds from residential development in the area, with payback to the city for the land for the pocket park coming last. The intent is to dedicate the pazks DET collected in [his area to fund improvements in the area. There is a projected shortfall of approximately $1.2 million that would need to come from either Phase II DET or from an increase in DET rates. Transportation improvements are the major unfunded public costs for which a potential funding source has not been identified. This needs to be viewed in the context of the larger city transportation picture. The fiscally constrained Transportation Master Plan (TMP) has little flexibility to fund additional transportation improvements in the next few years. As part of the FasTracks Local OpUmization project (FLO) the city's Transportation Division will be reprioritizing funding in the TMP, however, funds aze very limited. The funding options for the transportation improvements in the Transit Village Area include: • Fold into the Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization, which is looking at establishing a long-term, balancad and stable revenue stream for the city. The commission will be looking at funding for city master plans. • Incrementally put aside funds as part of the city's annual budget process to fund Transit Village Area improvements. • Place a shate of the costs of the key improvements onto property owners in the wider TVAP area through a general improvement district, special assessment district or impact fees. The EPS analysis shows that it will not be feasible to ask property owners to pay additional costs in the first few years. As the market in Aaenda Item SA Page # 9 the area becomes more established and sales prices reflect value in the area, the opportunity will improve. 4. Preliminarv Desian Concepts for the Denot Plaza/Rail Platform area As a follow-up to RTD's US 36 workshop, and to respond to Planning Board's questions about the area azound the rail platform, Junction Place, and depot plaza, staff inet with several RTD staff members on February 27 to discuss some of the issues raised at the workshop. The draft diagram in Attachment C illustrates the responses to the issues discussed with RTD staff and has been reviewed preliminarily by RTD. The diagram includes a conceptual ramp for an underpass and the conceptual dimensions for the plaza and for the historic depot to fit in the plaza with room to circulate on all sides. The diagram shows [wo altematives to passenger drop off and bus staging -in the short term along Junction Place south of Bluff and on Bluff; and in the longer term, after Junction Place is completed north of Bluff, the drop-off would be on Junction Place north of Bluff. Staging the buses on Bluff or Junction Place is within RTD's new operational guidelines of 250' walking distance. 5. Draft Plan In previous memos the Board received the following draft chapters: Introduction, Vision and Goals, Character Districts, and Facilities and Services. Implementation, transportation, and a background section will become additional chapters for the Public Review Draft Plan that will be released next week. A draft Illustrative Plan is shown in Attachment D. It is intended to illustrate the overall scale and location of area development and public spaces, and the basic transportation network. The colors are subtly suggest land uses. The illustralion will likely be used for the plan cover or for the Vision Chapter (Chapter 1). The draft Land Use Chapter (Chapter 2) is provided as Attachment E. Staff would like to hear any comments the Board has on these or any of the previous chapters you have received at the March 15 meeting. Approved By: , ~ M eyser Acting Planning Director ATTACHMENTS A Residual Land Value Analysis, EPS, March 2, 2007 B. Parking and Transport Management; Operational & Organizationat Strategies, L. Dennis Burns, Carl Walker, Inc and Todd Alexander Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Mazch 8, 2007 C. Conceptual Diagram Depot Plaza & Transit Facilities D. Draft Illustrative Plan E. Draft Chapter 2. Land Use Aeenda Item SA Page # 10 ATTACHM~NT A Pobiia Pin~nr~ Ru! Fjrqe EcoROwln Ra;ienelBr6neriq Land Use Po6ry MEMORANDUM To: Ruth McHeyser, Louise Grauer, Susan Richstone; City of Boulder From: Dan Guimond & Josh Birks; Economic & Planning Systems Subject: Residual Land Value Analysis Boulder Transit Village Area ImplementaHon Plan; EPS #16832 Date: March 2, 2007 This memorandum summarizes the findings from the residual land analysis prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS). EPS used a residual analysis to estimate the land value by zoning category within the Boulder Transit Village Area (T'VA). The residual land value analysis evaluates the feasibility of the zone categories as proposed and provides an understanding ot the ability of private development to shaze in the cost to develop area-wide improvements. The information is presented in the following sections: • Methodology • Results of Analysis • Limitations of the Analysis • Summary of Findings METHODOLOGY A residual analysis esrimates the value of land by subtracting total development costs from market supportable lease rates and/or sales prices. This residual land value analysis estimates development and construction costs from comparable developments in Boulder and elsewhere in the Denver metropolitan azea. The construction costs were reviewed by several developers and property owners acHve in Boulder and the Denver metropolitan area. Sofr costs, contingency, and vertical profit have been subtracted from the estimated sale price by product type. The remaining residual represents an esrimate of the value of the land plus profit for this type of project. EPS has tested several development scenarios based on a range of sales and lease rates including estimates of cunent and future market condiHons. In addition, EPS has tested several development scenazios and continues to test additional scenarios based on feedback from City staff. The scenazios have been developed based on the proposed DENVEX BERKELEY SACRNMENTO 7J0 Sevemeenth Stteeq Smro 630 Phone 303-62Jd55] ~y „~. phone 510-R469190 phonc. 916-fi49-R010 Denver, CO 8020?-3511 ~ex~ 303-623-9049 ~.~ fan~ 510-841-9208 fax 916-6A9-2070 www epsys cam Arwnda kam t~/~ Peae i l I March Z, 2007 Page 2 zoning categories that make up the preferred T'VA alternative selected by the planning board in October, 2006, including the following assumpfions. • A hypotherical development parcel of 5.0 acres. • Streets, parks, and/or other easements will consume 20 percent of the parcel. • An affordable housing component consistent with cunent City standards. • A 30 percent reduction in parking requirement from the BMS zone. Table 1 translates the zoning categories proposed for the TVA into a hypothetical development programs by zone type, for the purpose of this study. Each of the zone categories is briefly described below. • Mixed Use 1-1.0 floor-area-ratio (FAR); mixed use development with for-sale stacked flats over retai1,1,200 square foot average unit size; wood construction over concrete podium for parking; 90 percent residential and 10 percent retail. • Mixed Use 2, OpHon A-1.5 FAR; mixed use development with for-sale stacked flats over retai1,1,200 square foot average unit size; wood construction over concrete podium for parking; 90 percent residenrial and 10 percent retail. • Mixed Use 2, OpHon B- 2.0 FAR; mixed use development with for-sale stacked flats over retai1,1,200 squaze foot average unit size; wood construction over concrete podium for parking; 90 percent residential and 10 percent retail; no increase in affordable housing requirement. • Mixed Use 2, OpHon C- 2.0 FAR; mixed use development with for-sale stacked flats over retail, 1,200 square foot average unit size; wood construction over concrete podium for pazking; 90 percent residential and 10 percent retail; increases the permanently affordable housing requirement to 30 percent. • Industrial Mixed Use 1- 0.8 FAR; mixed use development with for-sale stacked flats over retai1,1,200 square foot average unit size; wood construction over concrete podium for parking; 50 percent residential and 50 percent industrial. • Industrial Mixed Use 2-1.5 FAR; mixed use development with for-sale stacked flats over retai1,1,200 square foot average unit size; wood construcfion over concrete podium for parking; 66 percent residenrial and 33 percent industrial. • High Density Residential 1- 20 dwelling units per acre; for-sale two and three story townhome units with average size of 1,500 square feet; self parked in private double caz garages. • High Density Residential2 - 40 dwelling units per acre; for-sale stacked flats/condominiums with average unit size of 1,200 square feet; wood construction over concrete podium for parking. Aaend3 kem ~ ~'Qt Pac~e ~ 1'L- - March 2, 2007 Page 3 Table 1 Develapment Program Boulder NA Implementation Plan Land Use Factor Res7 Res2 MUR1 MUR2a MUR2b MUR2c MUI1 MUI2 Parcel Description Parcel Size 5 ac 5 ac 5 ac 5 ac 5 ac 5 ac 5 ac 5 ac Undevelopable Land' zoq 1 ac 1 ac 1 ac 1 ac 1 ac 1 ac 1 ac 1 ac Total Available 4 ac 4 ac 4 ac 4 ac 4 ac 4 ac 4 ac 4 ac Available Land as SqFt 174,000 174,000 774,000 174,000 174,000 174,000 174,000 174,000 Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) Residential 20 du/ac 40 dWac 0.90 1.35 1.80 1.80 0.40 1.00 Retaii - - 0.10 0.15 020 020 -- -- Officellndustrial Q.00 Q.OU 0.00 ~.QO 0.40 Q.50 Total FAR 0.75 1.21 7.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 0.80 1.50 Development Program Residential' units 72 144 107 161 215 205 48 120 Affordable ResidenGal units 8 16 12 18 24 36 5 13 Total Residentlal uni~s 80 160 119 179 239 241 53 133 Retail SqFt -- -- 17,400 26,100 34,800 34,800 -- - Office/Industrial sqFt -- - 0 0 0 0 70 000 87 000 Total Development SqFt 130,667 209,778 173,400 260,767 348,133 348,133 739,556 261,444 Parking Residential 160 160 119 179 239 241 53 133 Non-Residential --- - 26 39 52 52 123 ~ TotalParking Required 160 760 145 278 291 293 176 264 ' InGutlas potential land dedicated for Sireet ROW or Parks ~ Assumes a percent efficiency factor of 90 percent Source: Ciry of Boulder, Economic 8 Planning Systems H \189H2~9wber NA Implememallon\MOUeIS41fi832-ReaitlLantlSCenarbB-03010> b%~wop EPS ran two scenarios bas2d on a range of sales prices. Scenario A assumes an average sales price of $325 per square foot for stacked flats and $315 per square foot for townhomes. Commercial lease rates range from $15 per squaze foot for mixed use industrial space to $25 per squaze foot for office and retail space. The result of the residual land value analysis for Scenario A is presented in Table 2. The project revenues by zone category are estimated to range from $192 to $257 per squaze. The high density residential and mixed use zones result in positive residual land values and the industrial mixed use zones result in negative land values. Scenazio B shows the impact of increasing the sales price per square foot to $325 to $350 for stacked flats and $315 to $340 for townhomes; the result is an increase in esrimated land values as presented in Table 3. All the land use categories, except the Industrial Mixed Use 1 zone category, generated positive residual land values. pggll~8118m # ~ ~ ~ -1~---- March 2, 1007 Page 4 Table 2 Residual Land Value Analysis - Scenario A Boulder NA implementation Plan Fac~o~ Res1 Res2 MUR7 Land Use MUR2a MUR2b MUR2c MUN MU12 Project Revenue Net Sales Revenue $32,623,200 $53,875,200 $40,047,600 $60,250,800 $80,454,000 $78,522,000 $17,912,400 $44,850,000 Rental Development Value ~ ~0 3 697 500 5 546 25 7 395 00 7 3 000 8 925 000 $11.092.500 Total Development Value $32,623,200 $53,875,200 543,745,100 $65,797,050 $67,849,000 585,917,000 $26,837,400 $55,942,500 roi0ioeveroumanrvaiuepersqF~ szso Szs~ Szsz Eze2 E2s2 32a~ sisz azia Project Costs Hard Costs On-Site Costs $1,633,300 $2,832,000 $2,307,840 $3,470,760 $4,633,680 $4,633,680 $1,625,000 $3,207,600 Shell Building Costs $16,333,000 $28,320,000 $23,078,400 $34,707,600 $46,336,800 $46,336,800 $16,250,000 $32,076,000 TenantAllowanceCosts $0 $0 $609,000 $913,500 $1,218,000 $1,218,000 $0 $0 Parking ~0 40 00 362 500 545 000 727 500 732 500 40 00 660 000 Subtotal Hard Costs $77,966,300 $31,552,000 $26,357,740 $39,636,860 $52,915,980 $52,920,980 $18,315,000 $35,943,600 SoftCosts 3e~orHC $6,207,238 $11,127,520 $8,662,012 $13,319,584 $16,772,156 $16,773,457 $6,168,900 $12,292,336 Cash-In-Lieu Fee (Affordable Ho~sing) 876 000 1 632 000 1 224 000 1 836 000 2 448 000 3 672 000 510 000 1 326 000 TotalConstruction Costs 524,989,538 $44,311,520 536,243,752 E54,792,444 572,136,136 $73,366,437 $24,993,900 $49,561,936 Profit is% $3,748,431 $6,646,728 $5,436,563 $8,218,867 $10,820,420 $11,004,966 $3,749,085 $7,434,290 TotalDevelopmentCOSt $28,737,969 $50,958,248 $41,680,315 $63,011,310 $82,956,556 E84,371,402 $28,742,965 $56,996,226 7otal Development Costs per SqFt $220 $243 $240 $242 $238 $242 $206 $218 Residua~Land Value $3,885,231 $2,916,952 $2,064,785 $2,785,740 $4,892,444 $7,545,598 ($1,905,585) ($1,053,726) Acres of Developable Land 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Land Value per SqFt of Land $22.33 $16.76 $11.87 $t6.01 $28.12 $8.88 ($10.95) ($6.06) Land Value as % of Dev. Vaiue 11.91% 5.41% 4.72% 423% 5.57% 1.80% -7.10°/a -1.88% Source: Gry of Boulder, Economic 8 Planning Systems H V fi832-Bwltler NA ImplermntellonVAOEW~18832-RxlElenOSCene~M-09010] ~IC~Lentl Vel 16832-M03020)6,doo March 2, 2007 Page 5 Table 3 Residual Land Value Analysis - Scenario B Boulder NA Imptementation Plan Land Use Factor Rest Res2 MUR7 MUR2a MUR2b MUR2c MUN MUI2 Project Revenue Net Sales Revenue $35,107,200 $57,849,600 $43,000,800 $64,694,400 $86,388,000 $84,180,000 $19,237,200 $48,162,000 Rental Development Value ~Q ~Q 3 7 $5.546.250 7 39 000 $7.395.000 8 92 000 $11.092.500 Total Development Value 535,107,200 $57,849,600 $46,698,300 $70,240,650 $93,783,000 $97,575,000 $28,162,200 $59,254,500 7ota1 Davelopment Value per SqFt $269 $276 $269 $269 $289 EZfi3 $202 8227 Project Costs Hard Costs . On-Site Costs $1,633,300 $2,832,000 $2,307,840 $3,470,760 $4,633,680 $4,633,680 $1,625,000 $3,207,600 Shell Building Costs $16,333,000 $28,320,000 $23,078,400 $34,707,600 $46,336,800 $46,336,800 $16,250,000 $32,076,000 TenantAllowanceCosts $0 $0 $609,000 $913,500 $1,218,000 $1,218,000 $0 $0 Parking ~0 00 000 362 00 545 000 727 500 732 500 440 000 66$ 0.000 Subtotal Hard Costs =17,966,300 $37,552,000 $26,357,740 $39,636,660 352,915,980 $52,920,980 $18,315,000 $35,943,600 SoftCosts 38%o/HC $6,207,238 $11,127,520 $8,662,012 $13,319,584 $16,772,156 $16,773,457 $6,168,900 $12,292,336 Cash•In-Lieu Fee (Affordable Housing) 16 0 0 1 632 0 0 1 224 000 1 6 000 2 448 000 672 000 510 00 $1.326.000 Total Construetion Costs S24,989,538 544,3tt,520 E36,243,752 $54,792,444 572,136,136 573,366,437 $24,993,900 $49,561,936 Profit t5% $3,748,431 $6,646,728 $5,436,563 $8,218,867 $10,820,420 $11,004,966 $3,749,085 $7,434,290 Total Development Cost $28,737,969 $50,958,248 $47,680,315 563,011,310 582,856,556 584,371,402 528,742,985 556,996,226 Total Development Costs per SaFt $220 $243 $240 $242 $238 $242 $206 $218 Residual Land Value $6,369,231 $6,891,352 $5,017,985 $7,229,340 $70,826,444 57,203,598 ($580,785) $2,258,274 Acres of Developable Land 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.A0 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Land Value per SqFt of Land $36.60 $39.61 $25.84 $41.55 $62.22 $41.40 ($3.34) $12.98 Land Value as % of Dev. Value 18.14°k 11.91 % 10.75% 1029% _ 17.54% 7.87% -2.06% 3.81 % Source: Cily of Boultler, Economic 8 Planning Systems H 11fi0]R-BaulEer NR Implemen~eOmVAatlale~18B30-fbmELenESCenerlo0~03010) qs~lantl Vel ]6832-M0302016.doo March 2, Z007 Page 6 Both scenarios include the added development cost of ineeting the City's 20 percent affordable housing requirement. The 20 percent affordable component is assumed to be met by 10 percent construction and 10 percent cash-in-lieu fee payments. The reduced sale price for built affordable units and the cash-in-lieu fees for the remaining requirement both reduce the land value of the project. RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS Table 4 provides a summary of the residual land value analysis by zone category. The highlights of the analysis aze summarized below: Residenrial development, in general, provides the greatest value. The high density residenHal zone categories generate residual land values ranging from $17 per squaze foot of land for Scenario A to $40 per square foot of land for Scenario B. The High Density Residential2 zone generates the highest residual land value. Both High Density Residential I and II provide feasible zoning categories that allow for reasonable rates of retum given average sales prices ranging from $315 to $350 per square foot. The mixed use zone categories generate positive residual land values, ranging from $12 per square foot of land for Scenario A to $62 per square foot of land for Scenario B (excluding MLTR2c used for the analysis of density bonuses). The residual land value analysis is very sensitive to the amount of residential versus non-residential construction within these zones. These zoning categories provide feasible development options, when largely developed as residential. The industrial mixed use zone categories generate negative residual land value for Scenario A with Scenario B generating up to $13 per squaze foot in residual land value. This is due in lazge part to the low lease rates attainable on industrial space and the less dominant role of residential development within these zone categories. As conceived these zoning categories are not expected to incent redevelopment. • EPS analyzed the sensiHvity of the industrial mixed use zones adjusting the mixture of uses to include largely office development. This sensitivity analysis did not result in higher land values because of the increased cost to construct office space, especially tenant allowances. • The analysis assumes that parking can be provided through podium structures at the ground floor for all of the zone categories facilitated by the parking reductions proposed for the T'VA. EPS has not thoroughly analyzed the impact of higher parking ratios on the development. An increase in parking ratios will likely impact the cost of pazking, and, therefore affect the residual land value. Agenda lfem #~~ _. Page # I to - March 2, 2007 Page 7 Table 4 Residual Land Value Analysis Summary Boulder NA Implementation Plan 2oning Mixed Use Mixed Use 1 Mixed Use 2- Option A Mixed Use 2- Option B Mixed Use 2- Option C Industrial Mixed Use 1 Industrial Mixed Use 2 Residential High Densiry Residential 1 High Density Residential 2 Scenario A Scenario B $12 .00 $29. 00 $16 .00 $42. 00 $28 .00 $62. 00 $9 .00 $41. 00 ($11 .00) ($3. 00) ($6 .00) $13 .00 $22.00 $37.00 $17.00 $40.00 Source: Ecorwmic & Planning Systems H:\iB832-BOWEer NA I~IemanktionUAeAelsu16832-ResidueVwlysis5ummary dsjSummery Density Bonuses Ttie City of Boulder asked EPS to evaluate the feasibility of using density bonuses to build additional affordable housing within the TVA. EPS evaluated one density bonus siructure, which included increasing the FAR within the Mixed Use 2 zone category to 2.0 in exchange for an increase of 10 percent (30 percent versus 20 percent) in the affordable housing requirement (Mixed Use 2 Option C). Under Scenario A, the residual land value was reduced by approximately $7 per square foot. There was little difference in residual land value, for Scenario B, with and without a density bonus. Therefore, it is unlikely a density bonus of 0.5 FAR would incent developers to deliver an addiriona110 percent in affordable housing. However, an increase of 0.5 FAR with an affordable housing requirement of less than 10 percent will likely impact the residual land value to a lesser degree and could aeate an incentive to develop additional affordable housing. LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS As previously stated, these planning level financial analyses are very sensitive to changes in inputs and assumptions. The following caveats and limitaHons apply to the analysis. The residual land value estimates presented in this memorandum conespond to specific assumptions about development program, parking ratios, delivery of parking, and building construction. Any change in these assumptions could significantly impact the results. The analysis has been conducted using planning level inputs and assumptions. The cost of construction will vary significantly by product type and construction type. Agenda I~em #~ K} Page i~_ March 2, 1007 Page 8 Furthermore, construcHon costs have changed significantly in the past 18 months and will continue to change moving forward. • The estimates of residential sales prices used within the analysis are based development activity and comparable projects in the lazger Boulder market. We have presumed these market conditions will be supportable in the TVA due to the introducrion of transit as well as supportive infrastructure investments. According to our limited market research, 2007 lease rates for office and industrial space do not support development given current construction costs. The analysis is based on an assumed increase in office demand in the near future, commensurate decreases in vacancies, and a related increase in supportable rents. Therefore, the rates are not necessarily applicable to the cunent available space or development pattern present within the T'VA. EPS analyzed all six new zone categories proposed for the TVA. These categories span both Phase I and II; therefore, the results of the analysis which pertains to the zone categories in Phase II, specifically the industrial mixed use zones, is illustrative of the need for added flexibility in later phases. The actual zoning in Phase II may not be changed for several years. The estimates of land value presented aze illustrative of overall future conditions and do not signify estimates of land value for any specific parcel or ownership wiUun the TVA. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Within the parameters of the limitations presented above, the analysis illustrates the expected impacts of the proposed zone categories upon land value within the TVA, as described briefly below: Residential Development is expected to support a higher land value than any other use, including retail, office, and industrial. The analysis indicates the high density residential zoning categories and mixed use zoning categories largely developed as residential maximize residual land value. Therefore, inirial development or redevelopment within the TVA is expected to favor residential uses, at least in the short run. Industrial Development is expected to generate the least land value compared to other uses. Of all commercial uses (e.g., retail, office, and industrial), industrial uses support the lowest lease rates, which translates into low estimated land values. However, the Mixed Use Industrial l and 2 zone categories can leverage residential and office uses to generate higher land values on a per square foot basis. Therefore, development within these zone categories can be expected to leverage other uses according to market demand to generate profitable land values. Agenda ftem # _S~_ Page ~ _~___ March 2, 2007 Page 9 Infrastructure/Public Amenity Investments are likely to improve development condiHons, reduce project specific infrastructure costs, and improve land values. Development ready land is more valuable than raw land. City investments in specific improvements ahead of development (such as Juncrion Place, the bridge over Goose Creek, a pocket park, depot plaza, and other amenities) are expected to improve the mazket for redevelopment by supporting increased sales prices and lease rates. Higher sales prices and lease rates translate into higher land values and therefore an increase the incentive to develop. More Flexible Zoning categories would allow the area to respond to the market over time. The market and real estate indushy do not respond well to uncertainty and long timelines. These factors negatively affect value, which translates into lower sales prices and asking rents. The adoption of the TVA Plan should specify the type and density of development desired in the study area and should exclude development that is considered incompatible with the vision of a transit village in 10 to 15 years. At the same time, it is hard to predict the expected market for office, retail, residential, and individual uses over that long a time horizon. As long as the zoning specifies first level active uses in specified locations, it may be reasonable to designate a lazge portion of the study azea as mixed use for either office or residential on the upper levels. Transit Facilities aze another major value generator within the TVA. These facilities are expected to broaden the overall mazket azea of the site for transit-oriented development (TOD). The regional bus facility, anticipated in 2008-2009, will begin to transform the azea with pedestrian and infrastructure improvements. These improvements may entice development; however, most developers will wait until the regional transit investrnents are made. It is still important to have the T'VA land use plan in place to preclude development incompaNble with the'I'VA vision. It is also important to have a sripulation in the Plan which idenrifies that future development will be required to pay for a share of the area-wide improvements through a specified financing mechanism, and which requires any future developers to pay their shaze of the recommended infrastructure package. This mechanism should be in place prior to up-zoning. Agenda Nem # ~ ~Y Page a _(.~_- ATTACHMENT B Parking and Transport Management Operational & Organizational Strafiegies Options Evaluation DRAFT 8 February 2007 L. Dennis Burns, Carl Walker, Inc. Todd Alexander Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute Many parking management strategies require (or are most effective withi some sorf of local organization to provide coordination and support within a particular district (commercial center, neighborhood, campus area, etc.). For example, such an organization can provide parking brokerage services that allow more sharing of parking facilities among multiple destinations, and services such as commute trip reduction programs, carpool matching, carsharing, and even bicycle parking, as well as support for local pedestrian planning, parking enforcement and facility design improvements. This allows such strategies to be more cost effective than for individual businesses to provide such services on their own. Some parking management concepts also provide for the development of parking facilities and improved operations and management services. A new concept we have been pioneering recently employs a strategy referred to as a"parking management collaborative". This approach provides for parking and transportation system planning, branding/marketing, common signage/wayfinding, validation programs and other services. This concept is typically applied when the district or area does not own or controi a significant amount of the parking assets, but wants to provide a level of coordination/management to facilitate improved efficiency, coordination with other transportation programs and enhanced customer service. The table below summarizes potential parking management strategies and the role that a parking or transportation management organization can play in their implementation. ia61e i Parkina Manaaemenf Sfrateaies Shate Descri Hon Local Or anization Role Shared Parking Parking spaces serve multiple users Provides parking brokerage and destinations. services and planning to facilitate sharin . Pdrkin Re ulations favor hi her-value uses Can erform arkin lannin , A~nda I~m #~1' _ Paue ~ Lb Regulations such as service vehicles, deliveries, problem identification, customers, quick errands, and people development or regulations, and with s ecial needs. enforcement ro rams.' More Accurate Adjust parking standards to more Can perform parking planning and and Flexible accurately reflect demand in a related studies to determine how Standards particular situation. parking standards should be ad'usted in a articular location. Parking Establish maximum parking standards. Can negotiate parking maximums. Maximums Remote Parking Provide off-site or urban fringe parking Can coordinate pianning, sharing facilities. arrangements, improved walking connections and user information to help make use of remote arkin facilities. Smart Growth Encourage more compact, mixed, Can support local smart growth multi-modal development to allow planning that supports and is more parking sharing and use of supported by parking alternative modes. mana ement. Walking and Improve walking and cycling Can support local pedestrian and Cycling conditions to expand the range of bicycle planning, and services Improvements destinations serviced by a parking such as sidewalk cleaning and facilit . securit im rovements. Increase Increase parking supply by vsing Can provide advice and support Capacity of otherwise wasted space, smaller stalls, for parking facility redesign and Existing Facilities car stackers and valet parking. special services that increase functional su I . Mobility Encourage more efficient travel Can provide advice and support Management patterns, including changes in mode, for various mobility management timing, destination and vehicle trip programs and services. fre uenc . Parking Pricing Charge motorists directly and Can provide advice and support efficiently for using parking facilities. for increased use of pricing by private property owners and overnments. improve Pricing Use better charging techniques to Can provide advice and support Methods make pricing more convenient and for implementing new pricing cost effective. s stems. Financial Provide financial incentives to shift Can provide advice and support Incentives mode such as parking cash out, and for implementing financial transit subsidies. incentives. Unbundle Parking Rent or sell parking facilities separately Can provide advice and support from buildin s ace. for im lementin unbundlin . Parking Tax Change tax policies to support parking Can represent local business Reform mana ement ob'ectives. interests in tax reform. Bicycle Facilities Provide bicycle storage and changing Can provide advice and shared facilities. bic cle arkin facilites. Im rove User Provide convenient and accurate Can coordinate lannin and A....nrle Ilem $ '~Q~ P9(12 ~ ~/~ Information and information on parking availability and provide various types of user Marketing price, using maps, signs, brochures and information on parking and ' electronic communication. mobilit o tions. Improve Insure that parking regulation Can provide support for improved Enforcement enforcement is efficient, considerate parking enforcement. and fair. Overflow Parking Establish plans to manage occasional Can provide advice and support Pians peak parking demands. for development of overflow arkin lans. Address Spillover Use management, enforcement and Can provide advice and support Problems pricing to address spillover problems. for addressing spillover parking roblems. Parking Facility Improve parking facility design and Can provide advice and support Design and operations to help solve problems and for improving local parking facility O eration su ort arkin mana ement. desi n and o erations. This table describes various parking management strategies that result in more efficient use of parking facilities, and ways that a local transporfation or parking management organization can support their implementation and operation. Most strategies become more efficient and cost effective if such an organization exists. Scope The scope of a local parking organization can range from providing traditional parking management services to a broader based approach that includes various additional transportation management and district improvement services, as summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Scope of Respo~sibilities Parking Supply Parking Management Transport Mana ement Business Improvement Association Operates publicly- Provides specific Provides specific Provides various services owned parking services that support services that support that support a facilities. parking management, parking and commercial district, such as local parking transport including sidewalk ' planning and management. cleaning and security brokerage. May also improvements, parking manage public parking and transport facilities. mana ement. This table describes the possible scope of a parking organization. Agenda Item ri~__ Page R a Z~ More traditional parking system scopes of operations might include the elements lisied in Table 3 below: Table 3 Tradifional Parking System Scope of Operations Possible Sco e of 0 erations Overall Leadershi and Mana ement ADA Com liance Pr ram De(nition and Develo ment Parkin Facilit Maintenance Pro rams Parkin Enforcement & Ad'udication Bud etin and Financial Mana ement Mana e Parkin Facilities S ecial Events Contract Administration/Mana ement Parkin Resource Allocation Public Relations Rate Settin Parkin S stem Plannin Residential Parkin Permit Pro rams Communit Outreach 8~ Education Service and Information Center Parkin Hotline E ui ment and Technolo S ecifications Wa findin and Si na e Ai orf O erations Customer Service Pro rams On-Street Parkin Mana ement Validation Pro ram Develo ment & Mana ement Meter Collections Valet Parkin Pro rams Meter Maintenance Parkin and Trans orfation Demand Mana ement Em lo ee Parkin Facilit Safet / Securi Shuttle Pro ram Mana ement Bic cle Pro am Mana ement Economic Develo ment Coordination Parkin S stem Marketin and Promotion Parkin Facilit Desi n Standards Develo ment Pro'ect Mana ement This table describes more traditional parking system operational scope elements. Organizational Structure Such an organization can be structured in various ways, ranging from being a government department (such as within a local planning or economic development agency~ to community based organizations (such as a business improvement district or chamber of commerce) or quasi-public entities such as a parking authority (typically created as a 501 C3 not for profit agency or in Colorado this might take the form of a 6320 not for profit corporation~. Many transportation or parking management organizations are some sort of a mandatory public-private association which all local businesses support through some sort of special assessment, managed by a board representing businesses, government agencies and sometime other stakeholders. The table below summarizes advantages and disadvantages to these three structures. Table 4 Com~arina Oraanizafional Structures Government PPP Volunta Description Government Public-private parking A voluntary association department provides management or of businesses, such as a arkin lannin and trans ortation mana ement chamber of commerce Aaenda Item # S l~' Paae ~ 7. 3 management services. association (TMA~. Typically, all businesses in the area are required to help fund the organization and help elect the board of directors. or downtown business ossociation provides parking and transport management services. Advantages May be easiest to Tends to be most effective, Is voluntary. Tends to be implement and since all businesses contribute most sensitive to the operate, since it is top- and have a voice in its needs of the business down. Funding is administration. community. relativel redictable. Disadvanta Businesses may resist Requires cooperation among Needs an effective and ges participating. May be various stakeholders. sustainable funding considered mechanism to support unresponsive and the hiring of parking or inefficient or transportation burea~cratic. professional to be most effective. This table summarizes advantages and disadvantages of different organizational structures for a local parking or transport management association. Building in Flexibility Local parking issues often evolve over time as a district or neighborhood develops. In particular, early during the development cycle it may be possible to supply a relatively generous amount of parking on surface lots (since many parcels are undeveloped, 'making the land available at minimum cost~, and travel options may be minimum (if there is limited transit and ridesharing services, walking and cycling facilities are not well developed, there are few services and residents nearby), but over time as more development occurs and travel options improve, parking demand is likely to increase, the cost of adding supply will rise (replacement parking will be structured rather than surface, significantly increasing unit costs), travel options will improve and land use mix will increase (reducing per capita vehicle ownership and use), and local traffic probiems will justify more efforts to reduce vehicle traffic. Table 5 Transit Oriented Development Evolution Land Parkin Trans ort Early - land Only a portion of land is Parking is relatively abundant Automobile-oriented. developme developed. Low density on surface lots. Few travel options nt and and mix. (walking, cycling, transit ridesharing, public services transit~. incom lete Mid - land More arcels are bein Parkin demand increases Im roved travel o tions A~enda~emq_~~1 Page~~ developme developed, including while supply declines and unit and increased traffic nt and land currently used for costs of increasing parking problems, leading to transit surface lots. supply rises, leading to more justification for services parking problems and more mobility management. partiy justification for parking com lete mana ement. Mature - All parcels are Most parking is structured and Very good travel land developed. therefore costly. Heavy options, including developme emphasis on parking quality transit services, nt and management. ridesharing, walking transit and cycling facilities, services with heavy emphasis on com lete mobilit mana ement. This table summarizes how land, parking and traffic tend to change as a TOD matures. As a result, a parking management organization's role is likely to evolve over time. Initially it wili be more involved in parking facility planning and supply, perhaps coordinating the construction and management of new strategically located public parking facilities, but over time it will shift its emphasis to managing available parking supply more efficiently and encouraging use of alternative modes in order to help reduce both parking and traffic problems. In addition, local residents, businesses and officials may want other services, such as sidewalk cleaning, valet parking and security, which can be provided by an organization such as a locai planning agency or business improvement association. For these reasons it may be desirable to design sufficient flexibility into the organization mandate and structure to allow it to respond to changing needs. In addition, developers, employees and residents should be aware that additional and more aggressive parking and transportation management strategies will be justified and required over time to address growing parking and traffic problems, and to take advantage of new opportunities. For example, early during the development cycle, parking may be abundant and cheap, and travel options inadequate, so employers may offer free parking, but over time as the supply declines, replacement becomes more costly and travel options improve, more parking regulations and pricing, and more aggressive enforcement will probably be required. While individual parking facilities are rarely self sufficient (i.e., prod~ce a positive cash flow~ that is not necessarily the case with a"parking system". Parking systems can develop, over time, to be significant revenue producers that than contribute to larger community strategic goals. The CAGID program in downtown Boulder is an excellent example of this. The l~genda Item # _,~"Y~_ Pege B~^ key to success for such a program is combining on-street parking management, off-street parking and parking enforcement into an integrated management system and aligning the revenue streams from these sources plus special assessment/fee-in-lieu revenues to s~pport program and larger community goals. The challenge will be to make such changes predictable, gradual and overall beneficial to businesses, employees and residents, by maximizing parking and travel options, providing good information, emphasizing benefits and being responsive to individuals' concerns. Scope of Activities Table 6 illustrates the range of parking, transportation, business and community improvement activities typically implemented by various types of organizations. An agency organized to supply parking (for example, if local governments operate downtown parking structures) will have limited scope. A parking management association has a somewhat broader scope, and so is able to deploy a wider range of solutions to parking problems, for example, by facilitating the sharing of parking facilities. A transportation management association can implement additional strategies, including those that involve improving and promoting use of alternative modes. A business improvement association can also help achieve other local planning objectives including sidewalks cleaning, security, and business promotion. 7able 6 Scooe of Acfivifies Activity Parking Supply Parking Transport Business Mana ement Mana ement Im rovement Assoc. Build and manage / / / / su I Shared Parkin / / / Parkin Re ulations / / / More Accurate and / / / Flexible Standards Remote Parkin / / / Smart Growth / / Walking and / / Cycling Im rovements Increase Capacity / / / of Existin Facilities Agendaitem#_~~Paoe# 2b Mobility / / Mana ement Parkin Pricin / / / Improve Pricing / / / Methods Financial Incentives / / Unbundle Parkin / / / Bic cle Facilities / / / Improve User / / / Information and Marketin Improve / / / / Enforcement Overflow Parking / / / Plans Address Spillover / / / / Problems Parking Facility / / / / Design and O eration Streetscape / / improvements clean and safe Business romotion ~ Non-transport ~ community roblem solvin This table illustrates the range of activities that can typically be implemented by various types of organizations. A transporfation management association ~TMA) or business improvement association (BIA~ can support more activities and therefore tends to provide more benefits, particularly over the long term as new problems develop and more integrated solutions become appropriate. Examples Ride-on (www.rlde-on.ora) Ride-On in San Luis Obispo County, California is a non-profit transportation cooperative established in 1993 with a mission to develop and implement creative solutions to transportation and mobility issues that concern employers, businesses, medical providers, visitors services providers, special events coordinators, government agencies and individuals. It owns 35 vans and buses. The TMA is guided by a steering committee with representation fram non-profit organizations, businesses and local government. It provides: algenda Item # _.~~ _ Pege # 2~' _ . Shuttle bus services to regional transportation terminals. . Shuttle services for children and patients. • Special event transporfation. . Lunchtime shuttle. . Employee Transporfation Coordinator (ETC) contract services. . Transportation information and referral. . Commuter baseline survey. • Guaranteed/Emergency Ride Home. Lloyd Dlshict iMA (www.ldfma.com) The Lloyd District, located across the Willamette River from downtown Portland, currently consists of approximately 650 businesses and 20,000 employees, including a major convention center, a mail, medical clinics, hotels, and office building. There are plans to add 17,000 new jobs and 4,000 new housing units within the district. Since 1995 the Lloyd District Transportation Management Association (LDTMA~ has worked to promote the area's economic vitality by providing transportation programs and services to improve access. The LDTMA has 69 member businesses representing approximately 9,000 employees. It manages several programs to improve and promote walking, cycling, ridesharing and transit, including Commuter Connection, a retail transportation store that brings a new level of convenience for access to transportation information and services. The LDTMA works to improve walking and bicycling facilities, improve public transit services, and in various ways promotes use of alternative modes, including the Passporf 7ransit Pass Program, an annual all-zone transit pass employers can purchase at a reduced rate per employee for all qualified employees. It manages Commuter Connection, a retail transportation store that brings a new level of convenience for access to transportation information and services. Transportation Coordinators (TC's) act as liaisons between the LDTMA and employees. Commuter Challenge Program (www.CommuterChallenae.orc) Commuter Challenge is a non-profit organization that provides business leaders with expertise and support to create innovative solutions that reduce commute trips, while recognizing business needs and improving quality of life in the Puget Sound region. It partners with the Economic Development Council of Seattle & King County, and various city and state agencies. Ag~nda li~ni;9 _ ~I~--- ~age ~ ~$ Black Creek Regional7MA (www.blackcreekcarpool.o-a) The Black Creek Regional Transportation Management Association (BCRTMA) is a private, nonprofit membership organization located in the Black Creek area north of Toronto, which includes major manufacturing facilities and York University. This area has more than 150,000 employees who currently generate over 62,000 automobile commute trips each workday. It is supported by the local chamber of commerce, individual employers, plus local, regional, provincial and federal governments. It was established in 2000. The BCRTMA's goals are to reduce local traffic congestion, parking costs and poliution emissions. The BCRTMA actively promotes improved transit service (increased frequency, more routes, better service quality) and cycling facility improvements. It provides the following transportation services: • Transit promotion. • Rideshare (car and vanpooling) matching and encouragement. • Cycling improvements and encouragement. • Walking improvements and encouragement . Shuttle services. . Parking management. • Guaranteed ride home. . Website and brochures. • Commuter contests. iransportation Managemenf AssociaHon of San Francisco (www.tmasf.ora) The TMASF is a privately funded association of building owners and managers that encourages the use of alternatives to single occupant commuting. 7he• TMASF was established in 1989 as a cooperative effort between San Francisco city and county governments, and office building developers in the downtown area. It has more than 45 business members and 50,000 individual members who use the organization's services. These services include on-line ridematching, transit trip planning and referral, business resource library, comprehensive marketing, s~rvey, public and community relations programs, inter-agency relations and event planning. The organization is run by an executive director who reports to a board of directors made up of inember representatives. Cambie Corrldor Consortium (www.toolsofchanae.coml The Cambie Corridor Consorfium (CCC) was the first transportation management association (TMA~ established in Canada. Cambie's aim is to reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles commuting to the Cambie/Broadway area of Vancouver and improve air quality by providing alternative transportation solutions and information. Approximately 25,000 employees are represented through CCC's 21 members. Agentla 1t2m +i ~ I~_ ~~ge #--~y,-m- The Cambie area is Vancouvers second largest business district, combining business, shopping, and residential areas. The area also includes several hospitals and medical centres. Because of the nature of the businesses in the area, parking was becoming more and more of a challenge. A transportation consultant and other staff at the Vancouver General Hospital had been meeiing with some of these partners for the last several years, and in 1995, they decided to form the Cambie Corridor Consortium to address some of their transportation problems. From those meetings, a trip reduction expert developed a transportation management plan that was used as the basis for the CCC's programs and services. The program provides a variety of TDM activities and services. Transit kiosks were erected at each member's work site where employees could easily obtain information on transit fares, shuttle bus schedules, and other information A shuttle bus service was implemented to transport hospital staff between sites. The bus makes approximately 2,100 trips per month carrying 9,000 passengers. The CCC also uses the shuttle bus to transport equipment, supplies, and documents between sites, saving member hospitals approximately $200,000 each year in courier costs. Van pooling services were arranged and are used by approximately 200 employees. Another 500+ staff inembers carpool. A payroll deduction program that allows employees to purchase bus passes at a 15% discount. To respond to the needs of employees, and address some of the barriers expressed in the initial surveys, an emergency ride home has been implemented. CCC has a contract with a local taxi company and employees are given vouchers if they need to leave work in case of illness or emergency. Also in response to employee requests, additional shower and change faci~ities, and secure bike cages were installed at some of the members' work sites. Since 1994, single occupancy vehicle drivers had dropped by 1.6%, transit use had increased by about 25%, and cycling had increased to 5.5% from 4.5%. The number of walkers had increased tremendously since 1994. Previously, employees who lived a short distance away would drive to work so that they would have a car available during the day to make trips between sites. Almost ) 0% of all survey respondents said that they regularly wafked to work. In addition, of the people responding to the 1998 survey, 85% said they no longer brought their car to work because the shuttle bus allowed them to travel between sites. Commufer Connecfions (www.commuterconnecNons.or9) Commuter Connections is a network of Washington DC metropolitan commuter transportation organizations coordinated by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). Commuter. It is the main commuter information resource for Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. It helps businesses identify opportunities tor voluntarily complying with the Clean Air Act guidelines to reduce vehicle emissions, and provides the following services: • Promoting telework programs and other pollution reduction activities. ,Ige~tla lie~ ~ ~~ Pa~;~~ • Using Geographic Information System software to match commuters for ridesharing. • Offers a regional Guaranteed Ride Home program. • Operates a regional system of Traveler Information kiosks, InfoExpress. BWI Business Partnershlp (www.bwinartner.ora) The BWI Business Partnership is a non-profit, member-run organization established in 1985 to promote sound transportation policies and economic development in and around Baltimore/Washington International Airport. It promotes ridesharing, Plextime, preferential parking, telecommuting, guaranteed ride home services, and other traffic management techniques. References and Information Resources Association forCommuterTransportation (www.actweb.ora) is a non-profit organization supporfing TDM programs. ACT (2001), TMA Handbook, Association for Commuter Transportation (www.actweb.ora~. CUTR (1995). TMA Evaluation Program, Center for Urban Transportation Research and the Florida DOT (www.cutr.enq.usf.edu~. Comsis Corporation (1993), Implemenfing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.ora). Contra Costa Commute Alternatives Network (www.cccan.orqJ is a successful TMA that provides a variety of services and information resources. Downtown Atlanta Transportation Improvement Association (www.atlantadowntown.com/TransParkina.aso) Marcus Enoch, Lian Zhang and David Morris (2005), Organisational Structures for Implementing Travel Plans: A Review, loughborough University, OPTIMUM 2, (www.optimum2.ora/downloads/reaort31505.pdf). Erik Ferguson, Catherine Ross and Michael Meyer ~1992~, "Transportation Management Associations: Organization, Implementation, and Evaluation," Transportation Research Record 1346, TRB (www.trb.ora), pp. 36-d3. Sara Hendricks {2004~, "Results of 2003 Transportation Management Association Survey: Analysis of Evolving Characteristics of Transporfation Management Associptions," Agentlalt~m:9~-~-~~~ .3I Transporfation Research Record 1864, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.orq); available atwww.nctr.usf.edu/clearinghouse/html/526-lOi.htm. Shirley Morrison Loveless and Jill Sebest Welch (1999), "Growing to Meet the Challenges; Emerging Roles for Transportation Management Associations," Transportation Research Record 1659, TRB (www.trb.ora), pp. 121-128. Joseph Sussman (2002), "Transportation Operations: An Organizational and Institutional Perspective," ITE Journal (www.ite.orca), Dec. 2002, pp. 50-55. TDM Resource Center (1997), Transportation Management Association (TMAJ Profiles, TDM Resource Center (www.wsdot.wa.clov), WSDOT. ;1~enda Item ~ ~~k i~~~~ ATTACHMENT E Chapter 2: Land Use Plan Land Use Ylan The Land Use Plan below shows the proposed land uses for the Transit Village Area. These include high-density residential, mixed use - residentiaU commercial, and mixed use - industriaU residential. Currently most of the area is designated Light Industrial and Community Industrial on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Land Use Map. Typical uses for the current designations are small-scale manufacturing, technical offices, and warehouse, distributing, and wholesale businesses. The only current land use designations not proposed to change are the Service Commercial along Valmont and, south of there, a small piece of Mixed Use Business along the east side of 30th Street. The overall intent of the proposed changes in land uses is to produce a more diverse mix of land uses, as well as a higher density of development, in order to capitalize on the significant transit improvements to the area, specifically new regional rail and bus rapid transit. Another intention is to encourage a significant amount of housing, in particulaz affordable housing. The table at the end of this chapter shows the development prototypes that would be typical for the each proposed land use. It also lists the corresponding BVCP land use designation and zone district for each prototype/ proposed land use. In some cases, an existing land use designation or existing zone district may be applied. In other cases, an existing designation or zone district may be modified, or a new land use designation, . zone district, or district overlay may need to be created. The specific intent for modifying or creating each potential zone district and/or BVCP land use designation to fit the plan's proposed land uses is noted on the table as well. The details of the changes to the BVCP land use designations and zoning districts and then formal adoption of those amendments will occur after adoption of the area plan. The timeline for this process is outlined in the Implementation Chapter (Regulatory Changes section). Housin The plan provides for a range of 1,400-2,500 new housing units, depending on the amount of housing that actually is built in the areas designated for mixed use. This will include significant new affordable housing options for low and moderate income populations including minorities, seniors, disabled people, families, and the workforce. A conservative expectation of housing for key tazget populations is as follows, based on the types of housing likely to be built and current city demographics (categories are not mutually exclusive): Seniors 240 People with disabilities 200 Local workforce 1600 Families ~100 Agendai~mt~L~._P~~ E-I Housing will be primarily condominiums and apartments in multi-story residential and mixed-use buildings with housing above one or two stories of retail and offices. Some new housing will likely be townhouse-style units. It is estimated that 300 - 475 of the new housing units in the azea will be permanently affordable, given the city's investment in the site at 30~' and Pearl and the city Inclusionary Zoning requirement. (The Inclusionary Zoning ordinance requires at least 20% of all new housing units to be permanently affordable to low and moderate income households.) This estimate ass~mes that just over half of the affordable housing units required by Inclusionary Zoning will be built on-site; about a quarter of them will be provided off-site but wi[hin the Transit Village Area; and the remaining units, approximately 75 to 120 units, will be provided off-site elsewhere in the city, using cash- in-lieu funds. Additional affordable housing may be built in the area if modifications are made to the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance, which will be re-evaluated in 2007. Another option for further increasing affordable housing in the azea is to offer a density bonus to development projects that provide more than the required amount of affordable housing. The details of this type of density bonus will be analyzed after plan adoption. Although a density bonus may not be economically attracrive to developers initially, property values in the azea ate expected to increase as infrastructure improvements are made, which willlikely make the bonus an attractive option. The city used Division of Housing funds to purchase the Pollazd Motors property near 30~' and Peazl for the development of housing. Although initial projections showed 250 or more units possible on the property, given the addition of a pocket park, the desire for commercial retail uses, and preferences for the alignment of Junction Place, staff now estimates approximately 200 units can be built. The Division of Housing still intends that half will be permanently affordable. Most or all of the housing development will occur after the lease with Pollazd Motors [erminates (see p. X for more information). It is possible that for-profit and non-profit organizations, such as Boulder Housing Partners, Habitat for Humanity, Wonderland Homes, Thistle and the Affordable Housing Alliance, will pursue housing opportunities in the azea. Also, the city will likely invest affordable housing funds in the azea to secure additional affordable housing. Retail The plan allows for neighborhood-serving retail to be located throughout most of the west side of the railroad tracks. This will ensure it's convenient to surrounding housing and office uses, as well as to the new bus and rail facilities. The majority of it will occur on the first floors of mixed-use buildings in highly visible locations. Projections indicate a potential demand for up to 10,000 s.f. of this [ype of retail. Neighborhood retail should respond to, rather than attemp[ to create market demand. This can be accomplished by converting the first floors of buildings to retail from other uses over time, as the area builds out and market demand is demonstrated. There will be less demand for retail on the east side of the tracks, especially in the near-term. However, retail to serve employees, rail users, and future residents neaz Goose Creek will be possible under the Agenda Item # ~..~ pa9~ ~ ~=? - mixed use industrial designation. A zoning change to allow limited neighborhood- serving retail uses in existing industrial zones is anticipated. In addition, some type of neighborhood-scale commercial use could be considered for the depot building, if it is compatible with the historic chazacter of the building, in order to ensure the depot will be a frequently visited destination within the area. If demand for regional retail in the central portion of Boulder outpaces the capacity for Twenty Ninth Street and the remainder of the Boulder Valley Regional Center to fill that need, the southwestern portion of the TVAP azea could incorporate additional "mid-box" retail stores. Based on anticipated mazket demand, one or two mid-box stores of 20,000 to 40,000 squaze feet each could be located neaz 30`h & Peazl. Some mid-box retailers have begun to develop stores based on an urban-scale site plan. New formats exhibited by this trend include mulu-level stores, stores within mixed use developments, and stores that incorporate shared and structured parking. This trend could be monitored closely and may be implemented if one or more retailers express interest in locating within the area. Service Commercial and Service Industrial Redevelopment throughout the area is likely to escalate commercial real estate prices and gradually displace existing small businesses and relatively affordable commercial space. To try to reduce this effect, the plan preserves existing service commercial land use and zoning along Valmont Avenue and designates areas east of the railroad tracks for mixed use industrial. These two azeas provide the opportunity to retain existing lceally owned businesses and retain relatively affordable commercial and industrial space in the azea. The service industrial and service commercial zoning districts were designed to protect some areas for certain uses; by restricting the uses, the land values can stay more affordable, at least in the neaz term. However, as existing service commercial and industrial sites redevelop, competition for this type of space will increase ren[s. Over time, gentrification and displacement by higher value uses will occur. Mixed use industrial zoning provides the opportunity to integrate service industria] uses with residential uses at a higher density. Besides preserving these zone districts, the city will encourage developers to design and construct buildings, to the extent feasible, such that lower rents can be offered in part or all of the building for at-risk uses. Additionally, a density bonus may be provided for development projects that provide permanently affordable office space for locally- or minority-owned businesses or non-profits. Both these strategies will be pursued following plan adoption. Mixed Use The plan allows a high percentage of mixed use development. This will provide area workers with opportunities to live near their work place and/or to shop, dine or do enands neaz work, and for azea residents to shop, dine, recreate and do errands close to home. Area workers and residents who make use of these opportunities may reduce or eliminate their automobile use and realize significant savings in household transportation costs. Agenda Item #~~_ page R r: -~ The plan concentrates development densities close to the future bus and rai] facilities to maximize the number of workers and residents who will have convenient access to them. Initial market data indicates that the area's mixed use zones will be predominantly residential in the early phases of redevelopment. Later redevelopment will provide the opportunity for many new businesses in the area. New jobs in the area will range from lower-paying retail and service jobs to higher-paying office and industrial jobs. The diversity of employment opportuni[ies will have social benefits, particularly since this area of the city is characterized by a higher percentage of minority residents. The city will explore the feasibility of a density bonus for area projects that meet the requirements for Leadership in E~ergy Efficient Design for Neighborhood Developments (LEED-ND) Gold or Platinum certification. The redevelopment nature of the Transit Village Area and its proximity to transit lays a solid foundation for development projects to achieve some level of LEED-ND certification. Currently in a pilot phase, L.EED-ND is an indusuy rating system that quantifies environmentally friendly and energy-efficient components of new development. The criteria address site planning, infrastructure layout, building design, and public space design. ~genda kem # ~J~ Page t -r_Ty ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lJl ;~ ~ I ~ .. ~ ~ NOTE: FINAL LOCATION OF BUS STAGING AND UNDERPASS/ OVERPASS TO BE DETERMINED DURING FINAL DESIGN, INCLUDING THE NW RAIL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM DEPOT PLAZA AND TRANSIT FACILITIES C~ BLUFF AND JUNCTION PLACE t "=100' MAY 6, 2007 ~~ In 2 ~ rn Z ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ATTACHMENT D ~ -~~. ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ _ -_ ; i ~ =-~ ~ `-' ;~'~ ~ ~'' ~/ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~~ '-~--~~ ~r_ : ~ I-1 ~j ~ ~ `I~III111 ~i1rq z-~~ ~uil[I ~ ~ ~ ~--~~ ~ ~ -~~ - ~_: - ---- - - -.--------~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ _ f- -1 ~ ~ ~~ - ~1 ~ f--- _ _~ . __l ' 1-I ~~f ~~ ~ ~J - --- -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~ "'~:___ ~~ _ • 1' DRAFf ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN MARCH 6, 2007 agenda Item # _~"~_ ~ # .D - J _ Transit Village Area Plan Draft Land Use Plan -" ~' -_- ~ ' Valmont Rd ! ~ '_ .. I ~ - . ~ ! .. Bluff St ,~-~--~ = .: v" _. ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ; 1 6 ~Jh ~ I ~ _~l ~ ' l. _ ~ ~ l i ~ ~. . . +~d _. Y? ~r ~' - -•~ . .:~ ' 1^,~„'~'~°, z-..,~-~:. _ ~ ~ ,. C :'i ~~~'. . i .+r~r~ - s ?s> ; l'':~~` ~ ~ ~- `I ~ ; .~ ~'' ~ ~~ ~: ~ ~~ . _ ~ ~..:.° ~ S;. , _. ... ^ ~ ,~ 4;._~ ; t~..~ ' '~•- ' _ - , . , : - _ . . ~ .~. ~~ ~ i ~ a~ '~r4 ~ . ~ _. ._____ . __ _ .._~-._- _--.....- - - - ` I :.~~k... :n. ~ 1 ~ r I ~ + ~ ~ . ._~_.. . " ~ __.__ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~,y` . ~ I T~~?, ;, ~ ~ ~ ; ~._ ~.Y. .. ~ Q ~' ~ y ~ I t ~ Y~ Q~ l L~i _ .__. _ a ~ - -- ~ ~ ~~ :r.. ~ '~ =.u . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~~' ~ ~ : ~ . • r~~ r. ~. P~ - p~ ~~~ , `~ ~ ..! ? -°*?^~.t~? - ~ L'~ r i T'}.~ ' f . ~ `. ~ . _' ~' ~' . [.._~s ),~}~r~ ~ .~ +~ ` '~:. i ~ ; .1k;~%. 1. ...=+rr \~~~..•• r ~ F ~ff 1 _ ~4 .' ~ ~ _ ,,.t .,~" ~ ~ '.P ~ _ ~ s - ~c ~ti ~1 `~ ._T j ,.{ ~ ` - i ~~ ~aafs ,F{,. . ~h . . ~iI y .~~'~~ ~ . `~. r "s , . - ~ ~ . ~ - --- GQ~se ~.eak r ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ ' i ,~ - ' - :~ `~ ~ `` ~ 3 ,~L ' ' Y ; , ,;_ a , p ~~ . +_~° -. ~T '' y ~'ar~ k_ •~:' ' .::~Y. pkw1' - ~_ .o - ~ ._,,... , LL ~ _i ,-~ ~,, ~` ~ ,'~`'~ .,~~` `:` iyF' ~' , '.~ hl ' . ~. ' •! ~ ' \ 1v - - - 9.._~,.;! t, ,' ~ e ~ t ~., ~ ... ' ~\\ ~~. ~ yv~.,.. „ . r~:. ' ~4 ~ , ~ P~ '' ~ ~~ ; ~ -,ti~ ;~-~,~~--~--~ - ~~-,; ' f ,~ , , : ~ ~ ' ~ ~~1 : ~~ ~ ~t '~• ~ ~. . r ~ ~, ` ! ~` .,.; - i ` • . . ~ . -. .pti~ ~ . ' v- , t . .I~ ~W`Y M _ • ~~ ~ .>,i'~ r~*x .w at.~n~~~~f jb: ~_~. ' r ~ ~ ~ .i'~, f - ~ ~T ' . `• . ~~~ ' ~,` '+ ~'~ {~ " V 7i1wR~~• !' ~~ . , l ~ ~ tl . -- ~ ~ -- ~` ~ ~ . 1 ~`•, ~~ "i;" p; i ~ J i ~ t ~ -~ ~ , - - ~q . . ~ .,,~~Ir ..5 ' ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ " i . J ~ i `, ~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ' ~..' f~'` ~ ;7r ~ ~'f ' ~ ~ ~ i ` • ~ ~ j ~~ ~li.l . . y .~ - { . ~ ~ `. ~ '.Y~• •~i ~ - -- ~~~_ '~ ~ ' . } ~ . ,' ~: ~ 1~ __ t .s ` - ;` `7;~i-~~-``" ~~ ~. ~r ~ } ~ ~ :r ~ ~ ~ .~ - i i$ , ~i~ ~'~ rn.. i II : .Y ~ ~ `' ' J4 ;} ' ~r 3~u* ~ j '~'A"'k - 4~iln---•~ ~,. i . ...r~ ~.~,~ ~ . , ~ ~~ (' r F ~i^ • ~ ,~~ ~ I I wu , I +` F ~t/ ~ , ~ iu ~M~i~. Y i~ ' -~-. y ' ~~T ~~. • ~NI ~ a, , ~ s • `_' i `~~a4,.1`^ y[, ~•.*~/.P _~'~'`~='~•~'1~_~~'~~' Sni ~~~ ._._ "l!R'_:~.°p' ', ~'3 "'` BI~ . ' ai.. I__ :'.-~ ~~ r ~ "~.lj I ~_ fJ'~ .. r , ` c '~.. ~ ` _ r, i ~ ; i ~{ ~ '_ . '.'~ ..i ..1-; ~'_~~'~1~.~ --~ . f 11 . . '~. 4rcnB. moi Legend DRAFT Plan Land Use Mixed Use 1 - Park plan Area High Density Residential 1 Mixed Use 2 Public Plaza O Ownership Parcels _ High Density Residenbal2 ~ . pgice Industrial ~. Greenway / Open Space (,_ Industrial Mixed Use 1 ~rvice Commerdal 1 inch equals 400 feet 0 400 Feet _ Industrial Mixed Use 2 . ,,wn a ftem u _ _51~- Nage # _ t ~ _ Prototypes and Proposed Land Uses Residential Potential BVCP Land Use Designation Prototype Density and tonin Fligh-Density Residential 1 ~~~~;' ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ 15 - 24 dwelling units per Potential BVCP des.: High-Density Residential w~~~ '~~ ,~ ~ acre ~ `` 5~,,. ~~~:~~, ~_ M~~, ~~,, .; ~ , { Potential zone district: RH5 or new zone _ ~ ~'. ~ ~F ~ .~.a "~ , '' ~ r ;• ` ~ i t ii ~f .;., ~`'` .~ ~~' .;!! + .. : ,` ~'~'•t~ ~ a . ~ '- ~ . . y.. ~y~, 7 ~~y ! , ~ k ~y~ . A , - ~ ~ .F.. ~ ~~R'. ... ~ y .ML . ~ _ _ .. .M_ ' - ` 1 .~ ~ ~'9~ ~ . ~` .~\l ~~y~~ ',:~ ~,'~`~~;•i 1~ I ~. ,~ .v / ~~~ .~~ `'~. _ t'?'~ `~' \ ~ Urban townhomes and garden apartments or condos Y` ~~~`y~ ~ . ~ U' ~~~~ '~~, with individual garages and surface parking lots High-Density Residential 2 - z 1,;,~~ `" ,~ ~_ ~ ~ . ~ 25 - 50 dwelling units per Potential BVCP des.: High-Density Residential or ~";4 - "~ ~~ - ~ acre new higher density designation ~ ~ ~~ , /'' ~ " ~~ "~ ~s~ ~. ildi ~ r ~'j r ~" ,` ;~e ~ ~ ~,- ''~~ F, ~' '~ , ~ ,~~, 1. ~ ,~ .~ 'f, ~" ~ " ~ Potential zone district: RH3 with possible ~ ~ `~ _ . ~ , .. ~.. ~~d _,;, , , . ,! ~ ,L, ~ .,~ , . _ _. _: ~ ": ' .yn.~r --~-\s~,.ra... :'iii~- ~_' ~„~, . ~ ~~~~ r,.. T~ . . . - .'`,~' I .. ~"""°er°r ~~ r r-`~~ - - . ~ ~~~,.~' ~f/ ' ~ ~ l ~! :+ .~C ~ F F"~' „~r,r J f ~, I t~ yf, i b . ~4. , j.~,. ~ ~~ -~ ~ amendments tacked flats and lofts with underground or structured ` r M . ~fy~„1~- J :~~` ~,;i !~~^Y]. ~ ~ ~ ~,.= , N ¢ v~, r ~ f ~` ~ __~r , ~i : ~r~~~~.~±f-,~' ~.'` parking ~~~~ ,.-~ :~ ~ ~1 i '~ M ~Xed U Se page 1 of 2 M ixed Use 1 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) " ~,r v Two to three story mixed use buildings. Predominant use may be business or residential depending on zone. Tuck-under, structured and/or surface parking. USe 2 1.5 - 2.0 Floor Area Ratio ~~'~f~ (FAR) ,~~. ~-,!'~ ~ ~3 i ~ i ~ Three to four story mixed use buildings. Predominant use may be on business or residential depending on zone. Predominantly structured or podium parking, mav have some surface oarkina. des.: Mixed Use Potential zone district: BMS Potential BVCP des.: Mixed Use Business Potential zone district: BMS for parking district (CAGID/UHGID), or new/revised zone district • may include minimum residential component • may include FAR bonus for affordable housing or other community benefit M~Xed Use page 2 of 2 Prototype Density Potential BVCP Land Use Desi nation and Zonin ~Aixed Use Industrial 1 = Potential BVCP des.: Mixed Use Industrial ~{ ; ~u ~~-~~.~~.___ - 0.8 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) - _ - ~ Potential zone district: IMS with amendments ' ~, _~:'~'~~ ~ ~°~' ~~ " - to increase FAR from 0.6 to 0.8 and may ~ a- ~~ , ~ ~~~ ~,;;~;,,~; -~ . ~~ specify residential and non-residential FAR _. s ,~~~, - ~n .,Q~ -,;~~~ _ ;,4,v ~ i~ < .~- ~ _1 _ . ~~ ~,,~C ~ •~'~ ~ ,~ , ~~r~ ~. ~._; limits - ~.a ~..~ = r ' i . \.~ <,~ . ~ 1' _ ; ~ Z ~ ~_~ . Livelwork units or residential mixed verticall or Y ' ~ ~ t f. ~ . . 1 ~~ , f f; '•~,~f ~,~, ~f;~~'~ ~~•' ~.- ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ? horizontally with light industrial or service industrial uses ,r f, : , . , : t~.. .. ~- ~~` -~ •~ : ~::~ _,. -,~."~ ~ ~ ' in one to three sto buildin s. Structured or surface rY 9 ' ~f ff '~ ' ~ ,,."~~i ~.;1,r ~f parking. , ~ ~~i;l: ~ ~ `' ~. .:~. :,: ~~ Mixed Use Industrial 2 Potential BVCP des.: Mixed Use Industrial ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ 1.5 - 2.0 Floor Area Ratio --- '°~"~ ~r_ _ ~ ~ . `~, .\ ~;~~`~ ~ (FAR) Potential zone district: New zone ~~~~~~.,„ ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ ~:'.5 .n ~lll'~ ,r,{r+, ; rv'sitr.s`. ,~~t~~NeR k~ : s+~t ~ i ~ {i . . , ry..~i,.~.= a . . .. .,.. L r~ ~~:.Y, ~' - - ~, ' Live/work units or residential mixed vertically or horizontally with light industrial, office or service industrial uses in three to four story buildings. Structured arkin . L ~ .{ , ~ Non-Residential Potential BVCP Land Use Designation Prototype Density and Zonin Office Industrial Potential BVCP des.: Light or Performance 0.7 - 1.0 Floor Area Industrial, or new fand use designation , ' ~'~ = ~ - " Ratio (FAR) ~,: ~~ ~ # =~` " ~ Potential zone district: Create overlay for IG ~. . y ; ; ' ~~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~~ : I~t~l ` `~ -- ~; „',r ~ ~ ~N F ~~ , . , - ~, (Industrial General), or new zone A r~ ~ ' `~ E -~ ~°~ ~.'' '~. 11 ~1~~°'a ~,~~, ~ ~ . ~ ~ "~ " ~ Intent: Allow hi her intensity than IG and more 9 r - . , . ~ x ~ _~ F " ~~. - _ f ~ office flexibility Inter~sification of existing industrial areas through addition of finro to three story industrial/ office buildings. Mix of structured and surface parking, although projects at 1.0 FAR will have more than half the parking either in structures, tucked under buildin s, or under round. ~~~p~~~ k~4~~l~~~CI~~ : u: ` ~ , .__ ~v ~ - BVCP des.: Service Commercial ~ ` ~ - ~ 0.5 Floor Area ' , ` ' ' ` ~ ~ ~ ^ _ _u'r'"~ . ~ -- ~ ,~~ . ,~ Y ~~I Ratio FAR ~ ) Zone district: Service Commercial A. , . . , . ~_~ d .. ' ra: ~ ` y!, ~ ~ ' i.t~ ~r~ ~ i ~ ~C"al,~ ~;~ ~:,r~.x .. `"~ -~. _ '«,~ ~ ' ~ ~~. ~~ 7~'c q ; reas preserved for wide range of retail and commercial uses, including repair, service and small-scale manufacturing uses in low intensity, one and two story buildings with primarily surface parking. ~ ~